turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:John F. Kennedy
When did he lose a kid? He only had the two that I'm aware of; one outlived him by almost thirty-six years and the other is still alive. Turtle Fan 02:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC) First daughter was still born in 1956. Her name was Arabella. TR 02:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC) And then doing research to make sure I wasn't just making that up (I wasn't), there was another son who died in August, 1963, age 2 days. TR 02:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC) Hunh. Learn something new every day. Now that you mention it I do seem to recall a son dying in infancy. Losing children while sitting as President seems to happen more often than you'd think. Turtle Fan 02:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC) :I read An Unfinished Life a few years back. I'd recommend it. TR 02:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC) ::I may. I like Kennedy. I've often wondered how I would have voted in 1960 if given the chance but I think I would have thrown my vote his way. We could use another Kennedy, a real Kennedy, not a candidate glomming off some part of Kennedy mystique. And not a member of the Kennedy family; Fate seems to have taken their best and left the rest. Turtle Fan 03:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC) WoD I went ahead and added the Winter of our Discontent as a comment. It seems logical to acknowledge that particular work here, since JFK would have been the central character. TR 17:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, I suppose. Hard to get excited about that one, despite the fact that it yielded sections for historical figures. Turtle Fan 18:22, September 2, 2010 (UTC) US President in The Gladiator After reading the note in the article the other day, I started thing about it and am wondering if HT intended the POD to be a more dovish President being elected instead of JFK. This hypothetical president then backed down during the Cuban Missile Crisis rather than Kennedy making a different choice. It seems to me that the POD would flow more naturally from this rather than an arbitrary different decision. ML4E 21:25, December 2, 2011 (UTC) :That thought occurred to me as well several times. However, the first change HT draws any attention to is the CMC. And he doesn't take the opportunity to have the teacher say "President Dove was such a wimp", just "the US was a paper tiger." So our best practice, I argue, is to assume that this was indeed the first POD, and that everything was normal until then, including JFK as president, and then acknowledge that HT does leave a little bit of wiggle room. :It's frustrating, since this is the one time HT didn't give us an X-timer to helpfully point out how "this world is SO different from the Home Timeline." Moreover, the education system is geared towards indoctrination, so we're not likely to have those "It's a good thing for us President Dove was elected in 1960 instead of Nixon/JFK" conversations. In that world's view, it wouldn't have mattered who the president was, Marx said communism was destined to win, and it did. TR 23:34, December 2, 2011 (UTC) I see your point. But perhaps we could add a second paragraph that says something like: "Alternatively, it is also possible that the Democrats nominated and elected a less combative candidate who, fearing nuclear war, backed down leading to the POD." Given that Nixon was the VP running for President, I think it very unlikely that the Republicans had the alternate candidate. ML4E 18:53, December 3, 2011 (UTC) :That's probably ok. TR 04:15, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :Nelson Rockefeller considered challenging Nixon, and many pundits thought he'd have strong support for doing so. In the winter of 1959 he travelled the nation sounding out party bigwigs and concluded the support was not there after all, so deferred his presidential aspirations till 1964. After that it was smooth sailing for Nixon, though ten right wing delegates at the convention voted for Barry Goldwater. :Assume that everyone who voted for Nixon in the general election would have voted for Rockefeller if he'd been the nominee, and that his liberalism made him more attractive to swing voters. Then, given how close that election was, it's easy to imagine Rockefeller winning. I happen to think that, for every center-left voter he managed to steal from Kennedy, an alienated conservative would have stayed home in protest, a practice that was more common then than it is today. Much better from his perspective would be if they voted for Harry Byrd, which could very well cost him Oklahoma and possibly Tennessee, but would hurt Kennedy in Alabama, Georgia, and the Carolinas. :Even with the right wing of the GOP sulking in its tent, it's possible to imagine scenarios where shifts in the popular vote hand Rockefeller some key battleground states. Hell, he'd need a net gain of 47 electors, and he was sitting governor of a state that gave Kennedy 45 electors. :Then we need to see whether he'd be the wimp who let the Soviets win the Cold War. He was pretty hawkish throughout the 60s, but believing in an aggressive foreign policy is less than half the battle. He'd also have to provide strong leadership in that area and be able to push back when the Kremlin tested the new administration. I'm not aware of his ever having been seriously tested in the foreign policy arena. The feeling I get from accounts from White House insiders in the 70s is that Ford did not consult him on foreign policy decisions. :Many presidential candidates choose their running mates for reasons of political expedience rather than because they believe that person has the makings of a strong executive. That's why unexpected presidential deaths often leave us with schmucks like Tyler, Fillmore and Johnson (Andrew, that is; Lyndon was nothing special himself, but he doesn't deserve to be included in this company; I don't much care for Coolidge either) in charge. In happier circumstances, it can mean that the Vice President is perceived as having ridden a great man's coattails for eight years and is not the correct choice to extend his party's winning streak to three straight elections. Bush the Elder and Gore faced primary challengers in 1988 and 2000, respectively--long shots, but spunky long shots who held on for uncomfortably long periods of time. Every sitting Vice President who has sought the nomination has gotten it in the end since 1952; ancient history now, but the most recent example of a Vice President throwing his hat in the ring when Nixon began his campaign. Of course, that was a 74 year old man who didn't seem to have much interest in the Presidency and was probably just doing it as one last hurrah before he got put out to pasture. The last time a party rejected a sitting vice president who was a serious candidate was 1920, and the last time the Republicans did it was 1908; since then, the GOP has won a reputation for handing out presidential nominations based on "seniority," though the criteria for determining seniority is questionable: Romeny is supposed to be the seniormost of this year's pathetic field, but Perry and Huntsman both have more time in governors' mansions than he does. Turtle Fan 04:47, December 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Actually, now that this phenomonon has caught my interest, I've dug deeper into the record, and it turns out Nixon was the first incumbent Vice President to appear at the top of the ticket in 100 years--and even then, Breckenridge enjoyed the support of only half his party in 1860. In the interim you had unsuccessful campaigns for the nomination by Charles Fairbanks (R, 1908), Thomas Marshall (D, 1920), John Nance Garner (D, 1940)--forgot about him last night--and Alben Barkley (D, 1952). In all the other elections of that century-long period, the sitting vice president (when there was one--there was no constitutional provision to fill vice presidential vacancies, which opened with remarkable frequency) didn't even bother running--he either contented himself to stay on the ticket as running mate, or he retired. So there was no precedent on which Nixon could comfortably rely to save him from intra-party challengers; if you don't count Breckenridge as the Democratic nominee in 1860, you have to go all the way back to 1836 for what was at the time arguably the only instance of a party (Democratic) unanimously supporting its incumbent VP (Martin Van Buren) for President. The Federalists had all backed Adams in 1796, and the Democratic-Republicans Jefferson in 1800, but our modern party system didn't really exist back then in recognizable form. ::It's Nixon who set the current precedent by curbstomping Rockefeller in the straw polls, and the precedent has gained traction since: Hubert Humphrey (D, 1968), George Bush (R, 1988), and Al Gore (D, 2000). As I said last night there are no counterexamples of parties rejecting their sitting VPs in this period, though Humphrey had to win an all-out intraparty war to get the nomination. ::I was very surprised to realize that, of the 56 presidential elections that have been held to date, only four have resulted in the election of a sitting Vice President: 1796, 1800, 1836, and 1988. Turtle Fan 20:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC) Given TF's comments, I generalized the second possibility so no party is mentioned, rather than adding speculation about whether it was a Democrat or Republican President who backed down. ML4E 19:47, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Glad that rambling novella-length comment did some good. Turtle Fan 03:55, December 7, 2011 (UTC) ::I do wonder if we've stepped away from incumbent VPs becoming the party nominee for the foreseeable future. Cheney didn't run, and, provided Obama wins in 2012, I really can't see Biden being the first choice for the Dems in 2016. TR 04:54, December 7, 2011 (UTC) :::Biden told some reporter "I still have my eye on the presidency" a year or two ago. I don't see it happening either. If he makes a run he'll probably go the way of Alben Barkley. I suspect he'll realize this and either retire or go back to the Senate to spare himself the indignity of a defeat. :::Maybe the new precedent is choosing running mates who aren't likely to get nominated? Turtle Fan 12:14, December 7, 2011 (UTC) Further Discussion Johnathan, please read the above. Now convince me that the alternative explanation of Kennedy not being elected President being the actual POD should not be mentioned in the Lit. Comm. ML4E (talk) 19:29, November 2, 2015 (UTC) :I'm always told, "no speculation here". Saying someone other than JFK was Prez in 1962 seems pretty speculative to me, because there is no in-story statement that such was the case. In light of the absence of such a statement in the story, Occam's Razor dictates that it wasn't the case.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:46, November 3, 2015 (UTC) :The story also does not say Kennedy WAS President. Unlike some other historical individuals (e.g. Kurt Haldweim in ItPoME), Kennedy was long dead when the story was written so there was no fear of legal repercussions in naming him. The facts, as supplied, equally support a different man being elected President in November 1960, one less hawkish who backed down during the Cuban Missile Crisis and did not escalate involvement in the Vietnam War leading to the world of The Gladiator. Occam's Razor is all well and good but how is the second scenario more complex than the first? I say it is not and so both possibilities should be mentioned in the Lit. Comm. ML4E (talk) 16:42, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::Third option-we take JFK, Khruschev, and Castro out of TGlad altogether. They aren't named checked in the novel. The only reason I put them there is that HT name checked the Cuban Missile Crisis and we had the pages for the people already. :The truth is, the arguments for and against have the same rough value. I certainly don't want to create confusion and bad precedent at this stage. Perhaps our default policy of only creating articles for people who are directly or indirectly referenced in a given work should triumph here. There aren't any references, direct for oblique, to any of those people in TGlad. TR (talk) 19:32, November 3, 2015 (UTC) ::I'm leaning this way myself. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:34, November 3, 2015 (UTC) Perhaps reword the Lit. Comm. to something like: "In The Gladiator timeline, all that is known is that the U.S. backed down during the Cuban Missile Crisis allowing the Soviet Union to continue to maintain its nuclear armed missiles on the island. Kennedy is not named as the president so, while it is possible he acted differently from OTL, it is also possible someone else was elected president in 1960." Having this information available to the user is important. On the other hand, this is described in the Cuban Missile Crisis article so it may not be needed here. However, Castro is almost certainly the leader in Cuba while Khrushchev less so. The three were the pertinent leaders in OTL during the Crisis so I think they need to be acknowledged in TGlad articles. ML4E (talk) 21:13, November 4, 2015 (UTC) :Or something like "To avoid unnecessary speculation, it is being assumed that the Cuban Missile Crisis is the novel's POD, and that all world leaders were in place at that point. It has been suggested that a different POTUS was elected in Kennedy's place, leading to the US backdown, but there is no textual support for this idea." I can't see how Cuba was led by anyone other than Castro. There is no reason to think Khruschchev (sp?) wasn't the Soviet leader either.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 21:20, November 4, 2015 (UTC) TGlad revisited See Talk:Nikita Khrushchev. In light of new revisions to TGlad's main page, it might be best to remove JFK from the novel's list of characters, since no leaders are mentioned, only countries.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:25, August 13, 2016 (UTC) :See your last comment in the sub-section immediately above. I say we keep the three for convenience rather than creating three "Unnamed Leaders" articles which we would have to do to capture the information in the novel. ML4E (talk) 16:14, August 13, 2016 (UTC) :I tend to agree. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:28, August 13, 2016 (UTC) :::Sorry, you tend to agree with who? ML4E (talk) 18:15, August 14, 2016 (UTC) :::: . . . You know, I don't remember. And rereading these comments isn't helping. Guess I'll have to change my position to "No Preference." Turtle Fan (talk) 21:15, August 14, 2016 (UTC) ::I think the best thing might be make the entire TGlad section into an out of universe lit comm similar to Gavrilo Princip in Southern Victory, describing the POTUS actions and then saying we just don't know whether it was JFK.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:56, August 14, 2016 (UTC) :::I might agree to that for the JFK sub-section but I don't see it for Khrushchev and Castro. The known POD was the US backing down over the Cuban Missile Crisis. This implies that the events leading up to the crisis were the same as OTL implying the two Communist leaders were the same but either JFK was more dovish or someone else was President. We will need to change the second paragraph in the Khrushchev sub-section to include the possibility of him not following the de-Stalinisation policy. That the long term view of Stalin is different from OTL is not conclusive evidence that Khrushchev wasn't Premier. Its not even suggestive given the ongoing rehabilitation of Stalin in OTL subsequent to the publication of the novel. ML4E (talk) 18:15, August 14, 2016 (UTC) ::::If the Soviet leader isn't alluded to in the book, there's no reason to have an article for such a character.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 05:56, August 15, 2016 (UTC) :::Nuclear missiles are installed in Cuba as in OTL. U.S. reaction is different implying either different U.S. policy or President but same USSR leadership. Pretty clear allusion to Khrushchev and Castro to me. ML4E (talk) 15:57, August 16, 2016 (UTC) ::::Update: HT has confirmed that TGlad has no specific POD, and the novel never alludes to any POTUS, not even an unnamed one. It's probably best to chuck JFK from TGlad list completely, and be done with the clunky speculative lit comms and footnotes.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 00:20, August 8, 2017 (UTC) :::What, the US backing down during the Cuban Missile Crisis isn't a reference to a US Presidential decision? Give your head a shake. However, Turtledove didn't seem to have any particular POD in mind but wanted to do a post-nuclear holocaust story does make this, and the leadership of the USSR and Cuba somewhat speculative. I want to think about this. ML4E (talk) 17:53, August 8, 2017 (UTC) :::All right, I reread the section in TGlad. I suppose the article on Cold War covers this well enough without talking about politicians. This, Khrushchev and Castro sub-sections may be removed. ML4E (talk) 22:18, August 8, 2017 (UTC) The Valley-Westside War TVWW section isn't very substantial. The anecdote about the coin focuses on the currency rather than the man, and might be better reassigned to Cladded US Coins, or maybe a new "Kennedy half-dollar" article created strictly for that purpose. The rest of the subsection is just a quote that has become a cliché.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 00:27, August 8, 2017 (UTC) :No the reference to the coin's importance is due to the man's portrait on it and not the coin itself. I think the whole subsection should be moved to "Hist. Ref." rather than create a "Kennedy half-dollar" article. It certainly has nothing to do with Cladded US Coins. That is, if we decide to do anything at all. The coin and the quote do seem to have some substance (Kennedy's words surviving and being used over a century later seems significant) so I am not convinced we need to do anything. ML4E (talk) 17:46, August 8, 2017 (UTC) Kennedy ancestor ref'd in T2G In T2G chapter XI (page 238 in HC), JFK says "One of my several-great-grandfathers was down under seven stone when he dragged himself aboard ship for what he hoped might prove a better life. They made him a factory hand here in Boston instead of the farmer he had been, but he kept right on starving." I think that's a reference to Patrick Kennedy (1823-1858). Assuming JFK isn't stretching the facts, it sounds like his life differed slightly from OTL. But I guess it could also be Joe's mother's father, or one of Rose. Do we have enough info for an article, or even a hist ref?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 23:23, January 16, 2019 (UTC) :This is a rhetoric device by the JFK character and needs NO action. ML4E (talk) 22:36, January 17, 2019 (UTC)